The Land of Rape and Honey, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
June 14, 2014 Martha Thomases 21 Comments
Hey, you know that “liberal” media you hear so much about? The one epitomized by The Washington Post? Well, that particular media myth had a terrible week.
Columnist George Will wrote an execrable column about the increasing awareness of sexual assaults on college campuses. He doesn’t like this trend (in no small part because the Obama administration is trying to do something about it), and so he questions how serious the problem actually is.
For example, he says here, “Threatening to withdraw federal funding, the department mandates adoption of a minimal “preponderance of the evidence” standard when adjudicating sexual assault charges between males and the female “survivors” — note the language of prejudgment. Combine this with capacious definitions of sexual assault that can include not only forcible sexual penetration but also nonconsensual touching. Then add the doctrine that the consent of a female who has been drinking might not protect a male from being found guilty of rape. Then comes costly litigation against institutions that have denied due process to males they accuse of what society considers serious felonies.”
You see, rape isn’t really a problem because so much isn’t rape. Will uses the term “nonconsensual touching” as well as an example of a woman who didn’t report her assault (by a man she knew and used to date) for six weeks to show what a trivial problem this is.
And who suffers when this happens? The men, who Will says are being denied due process. They’re the real victims.
You know why they’re being denied true process? Because the universities, eager to cover their own asses, treat rape and sexual assault as campus problems, not legal problems. What is is about organized groups of powerful men (e.g. Catholic Church, Penn State) that makes them more concerned about their reputations than the rule of law?
I’m not going to toe a stereotypically feminist line here and say all men on campus accused of rape are guilty. I can even understand how some men may commit rape without knowing they are doing so. There is a romantic myth in our country that women want to be wooed, seduced and overpowered by their suitors. It’s possible that some of these male students, away from home for the first time, misunderstand the signals. I know how easy it is, when I’m turned on, to think that everyone else is turned on, too. Throw in a few drinks (or other entertaining substances) and it’s easy to believe one is reading body language correctly, even when one is not.
If you aren’t sure that the object of your desire desires you, there’s a simple trick you can do to stay out of trouble.
It’s easy. It’s clear. And if the answer is, “yes,” that’s really hot. If the answer is, “no,” you stay out of jail. It’s win-win!
Note: A person passed out from drinking cannot consent. Snores and/or drooling mean “no.”
George Will is a columnist, and one cannot reasonably infer that his opinions are the same as those of the Post. For that, one needs to look at news stories. Here’s a doozy.
Did you read that? It says that the way to end violence against women is for women to get married. If we can only find a man, he’ll take care of us. That way, we’ll have someone to protect us from those other loathsome men.
This is ridiculous. It flies in the face of all of the research on violence against women. Here are two (out of many) facts from that link:
• Every year, 1 in 3 women who is a victim of homicide is murdered by her current or former partner.
• More than 60% of domestic violence incidents happen at home.
We need to stop thinking that being part of a family is some kind of miracle cure-all. I mean, I like my family in almost all of its various permutations. They did right by me, and I try every day to pass that on. But just because a group of people are in a relationship sanctified by religion and vetted by the state doesn’t mean everyone in that group is a good person. Nor do money and education keep away the violence.
Women and their allies need to step up and take care of ourselves. We need to prosecute rapists when they rape, and we need to tell our suiters what we want — and don’t want — clearly, so there is no doubt. We need to stand up for our sisters and brothers who are assaulted. We need to teach our children how to be loud and proud so no grown-up takes advantage.
And sometimes, we just need to sign a petition.
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, may be in a better mood when she is finished with this round of dental appointments.

Mike Gold
June 14, 2014 - 9:48 am
I think you’re missing the point.
According to Will and his Republican fellow travellers, women are evil. They are seductresses who enchant hopelessly dick-driven men just so they can complain that they were “victims.” Evil, evil, evil, evil.
As further evidence, I point to the entire justice system of India.
And the bible. I point to that, too. Women are evil, because the almighty man sez so.
Dwight Williams
June 14, 2014 - 11:50 am
That whole “women are evil” doctrine can go toss itself in a dumpster. One headed for the nearest crematorium. No matter who believes it to be true.
Liz Haase
June 14, 2014 - 1:20 pm
I continue to be appalled by the fact that this “conversation” continues in 2014, that women are still considered chattel by many men. We are fortunate that there are many men as well who are as outraged as we are, Martha. FYI we cancelled our subscription to The Post this week.
Liz Haase
June 14, 2014 - 1:20 pm
I continue to be appalled by the fact that this “conversation” continues in 2014, that women are still considered chattel by many men. We are fortunate that there are many men as well who are as outraged as we are, Martha. FYI we cancelled our subscription to The Post this week.
Rene
June 14, 2014 - 3:23 pm
A few minutes of clicking will show that George Will, Robin Fretwell Wilson, and W. Bradford Wilcox are all associated with Conservative groups and causes. If they’re the “liberal media”, then I’d hate to read about the real conservative media. That would be Ann Coulter?
This is one of those issues where I really can’t understand Conservative strategy. They’re pushing ideas that attract a portion of the male population, by pushing away the other portion of males and almost all the females. Now, I don’t need a degree in mathematics to say that isn’t sound strategy.
It really does seem that, more and more, they’re sacrificing national politics for a better grip at the regional.
Mike Gold
June 14, 2014 - 4:01 pm
Rene, George Will has been trying to nab the William F Buckley Intellectual Conservative Award for decades and decades. He’s not as hysterical as Cal Thomas or Phyllis Schlafly, so he’s simply a boring, tedious man with a great big dictionary.
Overall, the Washington Post is the most balanced and professional national newspaper of the bunch, in my opinion. I don’t fault them for running columnists who generally oppose what I consider to be vital — they’re columnists, and entitled to their opinion no matter how asinine. No one should be censored. People like Will should be censured.
Which is what we’re doing.
Rene
June 14, 2014 - 6:51 pm
Yeah, I prefer to believe that opinions like George Will’s have a way of exploding back on his face. Let the whole world know what sort of guys they are, that will minimize and excuse rape.
R. Maheras
June 16, 2014 - 8:15 am
George will is a conservative, and has been as long as I can remember. The Washington Post is, in fact, a liberal newspaper, and has been as long as I can remember. That the Post has a token conservative columnist is no surprise. Conservative media outlets often have token liberal columnists. It’s the media’s silly way of convincing themselves that they are “non-aligned” and impartial.
The Post’s dumb article that you linked to is probably an anomaly, or it simply shows that liberal men are also often confused and/or biased when it comes to treating women equally.
Ham-fisted and stodgy as it is, Will’s article is correct in one regards: When it comes to the new “rules” about rape, the deck is stacked against the guy. He will always lose in a he-said/she-said situation.
On one hand, I suppose that’s only fair, since historically it’s been the woman who had the deck stacked against her in alleged rape situations. But expecting two people who are shit-faced drunk or high to rationally make any decisions is ridiculous. The only way I’d give the woman the total benefit of the doubt, and a free pass, is if she were drunk and the guy(s) performing the intercourse was/were sober.
Regardless of what one thinks about modern-day Judeo-Christian religion, the whole “wait until you’re married” thing liberals vigorously lobbied against from the 1960s on has not made people any happier. If anything, the whole relationship game is now harder to play than ever, and when it does go bad, the woman usually gets the raw end of the deal.
Rene
June 16, 2014 - 9:29 am
Russ –
But this is such a difficult issue to quantify and investigate. How do we say with any confidence that people are not any happier? And if they’re in fact not any happier, how do we say it’s specifically because of sexual politics regarding sex and marriage?
IMO, the decline of “happiness” has a lot to do:
a) Living in a world where the old moral certainties just couldn’t make it. And that has lot more to do with the malaise in western culture over what happened in WWII and afterwards (the important question here is: If God exists and life makes sense, then why the Nazis? Why the Atomic Bomb?)
b) Technological innovations that outpaced man’s capability to absorb them.
Given a + b, the existential crisis that fueled a lot of cultural revolutions, including in the sexual arena, couldn’t be stopped.
The other objection I have is that, pre-1960s, the only spokespersons for “happiness” were white males. When nobody else has a voice, how do we know if people are really happy?
There is also research that shows that the impact of the sexual revolution in the rate of pre-marital sex has been somewhat exaggerated, and that rates of pre-marital sex have been more or less constant in the US for the 20th-century. It makes sense to me. I tend to believe that people weren’t as sexually conservative in the pre-1960s as popular culture wants us to believe. Things were simply discussed less openly.
And last, but not least, I remain confused by conservatives always valuing security and control and societal duties in sexual matters, when they’re the exact opposite in economic matters. That is, of course, a problem with liberals too, for the inverse question.
Martha Thomases
June 16, 2014 - 9:39 am
Russ, it may be romantic to think otherwise, but men have been getting away with murder (sometimes literally) in sexual assault cases, and continue to do so every single day.
The Post has many more centrist and conservative writers than George Will. If anything, it suffers from being so inside-the-Beltway. Even New Yorkers are not as provincial as the editorial board of the Post.
And, speaking for myself, the fact that I had enough different sexual partners before I married meant that I married for love. Which is no small part of the reason I stayed married.
Mike Gold
June 16, 2014 - 9:48 am
The Washington Post is a liberal paper only to those who believe The Washington Times publishes the unbiased truth.
Martha’s right, in my opinion, about how the Post’s attitude is shaped by its being so inside-the-beltway. But, to be fair, nobody in America is more provincial than New Yorkers. The proof of this is how New Yorkers go apeshit when you say nobody in America is more provincial than New Yorkers.
Aside from religious cabals, of course.
Rene
June 16, 2014 - 11:58 am
One other thing is that people today are very vocal about their unhappiness. That creates an impression that there is more unhappiness to go around.
Older generations were more stoic. There is nothing like a pre-1960s woman to endure 50 years of a unhappy marriage while keeping a brave front.
R. Maheras
June 16, 2014 - 12:27 pm
Well, the fact is, the more partners one has, the more likely one is to get some sort of STD. Some are treatable if caught in the early stages, some aren’t. Those that are treatable can permanently damage reproductive organs, and some can kill. Studies have shown that when alcohol consumption increases, there is a corresponding increase in STDs and pregnancy (duh!). This is understandable, since when one is shit-faced drunk or high, the last thing on one’s mind is protection.
So what happens if there is a pregnancy, and there’s no way the two ever had any interest in getting married to each other? The woman has to either get an abortion, or have the child. The guy often vanishes at this point because, after all, it was allegedly consensual with no strings attached. If there is a baby, the guy may pay child support, or he may not. Either way, in many cases today, if the woman does go full term, she often ends up being a single parent. This, according to statistics, greatly decreases her earning power, and greatly increases her future household costs. She can put the baby up for adoption, of course, but that, as with some of the other options previously mentioned, can lead to permanent psychological scarring. Unwed mothers who opt to raise their child often end up endlessly paying for a single poor decision that many guys don’t think twice about simply walking away from.
There are other issues with dating and relationships today that seem to make things far more complicated and awkward — like having sex with someone you’ve dated only a few times “just to get it over with.” If I had a buck for every time I heard some younger person complain how hard it is to meet the right person, I’d be typing this from my Chateau in the south of France. If things are so much better now, why do you suppose that is?
And I heard some smartass guy once crow, “Why buy the cow when the milk is free?” Unfortunately, a lot of guys still feel that way.
So, while people today may not like how the dating and marriage dance went in the old days, today is definitely not a panacea either — especially for women.
Martha Thomases
June 16, 2014 - 12:38 pm
I have never had an STD. I have never even had crabs. Just because a person has an enjoyable number of partners doesn’t mean that person has no standards.
In fact, it is because I have standards that I met “the” right person (I don’t happen to think there is only one, but that’s another discussion). However, there are lots of options between being celibate and settling down. Thank the Goddess.
Read what I wrote, Russ. I said that drunk people cannot give consent.
Mike Gold
June 16, 2014 - 1:01 pm
I never had an STD or crabs, either. And that puts both Martha and me square with the majority of our generation.
To be fair, that’s because at age 19 at the height of raging hormones I made the conscious decision not to sleep with anybody who slept with Abbie Hoffman. That decision was for health reasons… and for aesthetic concerns.
However… whereas I conceptually agree that drunk people cannot give consent, if every act of drunken sex resulted in a rape conviction we’d have no place to imprison the weed smokers.
Rene
June 16, 2014 - 2:03 pm
Russ, I think I am pragmatic enough to sometimes doubt liberal wisdom. Some people (okay, lots of people) are actually stupid enough to almost make me believe in restrictive religions or social norms.
Almost.
The thing is that restrictive social norms tend to sweep the problems under the rug instead of really solving them. The recent scandal in Ireland shows that a conservative Catholic society has a LOT of children born out of wedlock (they used to call them “bastards” in the old days), only they were sent to shady orphanages to starve and die and conveniently disappear from society.
Or you’d have the unwilling, irresponsible father forced into a marriage he never wanted, continuing with that wonderful alcoholism, and abusing the wife and kids.
I am actually a believer in the quaint notion that you should only have sex with someone you love. Failing that, if you really, really gotta have casual sex, that you should take all the precautions. But those notions must be internalized, heartfelt. Not imposed by church and/or state.
Martha Thomases
June 17, 2014 - 6:26 am
I offer this to the discussion: http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/an-obgyn-writes-to-george-will-about-college-rape/
Rene
June 17, 2014 - 7:05 am
Powerful stuff, Martha. Powerful stuff.
I also gotta wonder about all those males who seem to think it’s so easy to wander into potential “false” rape situations.
Because it never occurred to me to go looking for some drunk women to have sex with. Yes, I’m old-fashioned like that, I prefer my partners to be conscious.
R. Maheras
June 17, 2014 - 11:11 am
Martha — I know you wrote that drunk people can’t give consent. The government has been preaching that in their sexual assault awareness video briefing for many years.
But like Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign, that viewpoint does not address reality. The way the policy is enforced now, if two people are drunk and have intercourse, and the woman wakes up later and says, “I was drunk and did not give consent,” the guy can go to jail — even if he was just as drunk. In other words, the woman gets a free pass for being stupid and getting shit-faced, but the guy is arrested, and if convicted, he’s labeled a sex predator FOR LIFE.
So, while women got the raw end of the deal in the past when it came to alleged rape, the pendulum has totally swung in the other direction against the guy. All I’m saying is that NEITHER is fair.
R. Maheras
June 17, 2014 - 11:19 am
Rene — Once, in my early 20s, I got so drunk I eventually passed out. Along the way, I reached a point where I have no idea what I did. That was so disconcerting to me, I never drank like that again. But in college, getting bombed is not only a rite of passage, it’s EXPECTED. After all, films like “Animal House” make such heavy drinking look cool.
Martha Thomases
June 17, 2014 - 11:44 am
Gee, Russ, I don’t know. What if two people got really drunk, so drunk they don’t know what they’re doing, and one of them kills the other. They were both drunk, but one will be labeled a murderer FOR LIFE.
The other, of course, is dead.
Rape is a crime. It is a crime of violence. If a person commits a violent crime when intoxicated, that person, at the very least, should get professional help about why such impulses get released when that person is drunk.
Rene
June 17, 2014 - 3:02 pm
Russ – Funny, my college was somewhat conservative. No wild parties, though by that time in my life I was too shy to go to wild parties anyway.
I am such a square that I was 19 the first time I got to drink a beer. Really. And I was in my late 20s the first time I got really shit-faced. I don’t very much like the sensation of losing control.
Brazilians have a reputation for wild parties, but I think Brazilian culture is slightly different. People are less uptight about sex. Consequently, there is less need for heavy drinking to get rid of inhibitions.
Most parties I’ve been to, people only started to drink more heavily when they knew they weren’t going to score that night anyway. A consolation prize, not liquid courage.
R. Maheras
June 18, 2014 - 6:53 am
Martha — Comparing rape and murder amongst drunk people is disingenuous. Murder (or at least manslaughter of some type) is a clear-cut crime because there is a dead body.
However, when two people are drunk, and there is intercourse, it’s almost impossible to prove if it was consensual or not unless there are witnesses, or of there is some other evidence — such as evidence of a struggle (broken furniture, bruising, etc.).
I don’t “side” with the man here, I side with the rule of law, and the side of evidence. Men lie, but so do women. I’ll never forget a girlfriend laughingly telling me in the 1970s that her friends got money from a former “jerk” of a boyfriend by telling him she was pregnant and needed money for an abortion — when in reality, she wasn’t pregnant at all. Up to that point I guess I was pretty naïve, but after that, our relationship cooled and we soon broke it off. Why? Simple. How could I trust someone who thought lying like that was funny?
So I guess I don’t automatically trust anyone.
Martha Thomases
June 18, 2014 - 7:26 am
Russ, your experience is anecdotal. It may be interesting, but it doesn’t prove anything.
The facts are that rape is, if anything, under-reported. That means that, if anyone is lying, it is the victims by their silence. Men are the ones who benefit.
I would imagine that there are as many rapes lied about by people who were drunk as there are robberies lied about by people who were drunk. I see a few of these on JUDGE JUDY, but not enough to think its an epidemic.
(Note: I acknowledge I have no proof of the above conjecture.)
R. Maheras
June 18, 2014 - 8:24 am
Martha — Just because my comment is anecdotal does not mean it’s wrong, or even a rare occurrence.
One could just as easily argue that anything is anecdotal, be it wrongful imprisonment, stupid stuff Republicans/Democrats say, dying in a fiery motor vehicle explosion because of a faulty ignition switch, etc.
And while I agree that rape is under-reported, that has no bearing on what I think are new and unfair rape laws involving two drunk people having intercourse. In such cases where there is no other evidence or witnesses, if a person can be charged with rape and permanently labeled a sex offender simply on their partner’s post-sober testimony that the intercourse was not consensual, then there’s something wrong with the law.
Rene
June 18, 2014 - 10:47 am
Someone could provide me links to these “new rape laws”? Preferably a site with not much of a biased commentary?
R. Maheras
June 18, 2014 - 12:46 pm
Here’s the DOD Directive 6495.01 definition of:
Consent — “consent. Words or overt acts indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the accused’s use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating relationship or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the sexual conduct at issue shall not constitute consent. There is no consent where the person is sleeping or incapacitated, such as due to age, alcohol or drugs, or mental incapacity.”
Sexual assault — “Intentional sexual contact characterized by use of force, threats, intimidation, or abuse of authority or when the victim does not or cannot consent. The term includes a broad category of sexual offenses consisting of the following specific UCMJ offenses: rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, forcible sodomy (forced oral or anal sex), or attempts to commit these acts.”
The key word here is consent. According to these new rules, anyone who is “incapacitated” cannot give consent for sexual relations. The other key word is “incapacitated” — which is not defined by blood-alcohol level or anything else.
As Martha correctly argues, the rules are no consent, no sex.
But if both parties have been drinking, and they have intercourse, and the woman later reports the guy and states the he did not get her consent, under the law, if he’s found guilty, he can be punished — and he will be labeled a sexual predator for the rest of his life.
This is what I mean about the unfairness pendulum swinging in the opposite direction in a he-said/she-said situation.
Now you know why I’m advocating a “wait until you’re married” social structure again.
R. Maheras
June 18, 2014 - 1:07 pm
The thing is even when we are sober, we are absolutely terrible at reading signals from possible dating and/or sexual partners. Add alcohol or recreational drugs to the mix and it becomes damn near impossible for a guy to read a situation right. And if a partner is drunk, says yes to sexual advances, and later recants when sober, the guy is doomed under the new definition of consent.
Reading signals: http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/love-sex/everyone-sucks-at-flirting-study
Rene
June 18, 2014 - 1:08 pm
What were the previous laws? I mean, what are the changes this new law proposes?
And you saying that everyone should be celibate until married just because it’s possible that one very scheming, possibly psycophatic woman, that would subject herself to be seen as a rape victim (something that 99.9% of women would find a hideous and embarassing position to be in, despite what George Will thinks) could falsely accused a man?
Isn’t that like saying people should never breathe without a mask because once someone released some poison gas in a Tokyo subway?
But okay, let’s entertain the idea. If men are the ones most hurt by this new law, then it’s the MALE that should wait until he is married, correct? Why should women carry the burden of being celibate when the law supposedly benefits them? I don’t say that to be facetious, it’s just that society traditionally placed all the burden of sacrifice on women (a man has sex outside of marriage = boys will be boys; a woman does the same = she’s ruined).
I wonder what guys would say to that.
R. Maheras
June 18, 2014 - 1:21 pm
The woman (or man, for that matter) doesn’t have to be a schemer. They may have simply may not remember consenting to intercourse once they have sobered up.
And that’s the problem. If any alcohol or drugs are involved at all in a sexual relations incident, if there is any official dispute afterwards, the guy is dead meat. Not only that, if convicted, he will be labeled a sexual predator for life.
R. Maheras
June 18, 2014 - 1:22 pm
The woman (or man, for that matter) doesn’t have to be a schemer. They simply may not remember consenting to intercourse once they have sobered up.
And that’s the problem. If any alcohol or drugs are involved at all in a sexual relations incident, if there is any official dispute afterwards, the guy is dead meat. Not only that, if convicted, he will be labeled a sexual predator for life.
Rene
June 18, 2014 - 1:32 pm
What were the former laws? What changes are introduced by this law?
Martha Thomases
June 18, 2014 - 2:01 pm
Russ, we seem to be at an impasse. The point I’m trying to make is that it is a terrible problem that women not only get raped and otherwise assaulted, but are afraid to report it. You, if I’m reading you correctly, think the real problem is that men might get accused of rape by a woman who changed her mind.
I think the problem I document is both more frequent and more serious than yours.
And marriage is no defense against assault. Quite the opposite.
Rene
June 18, 2014 - 2:20 pm
Heh. It seems to be a pattern, correct?
Liberals are worried about gay rights, conservatives are worried that gays rights are eroding religious freedoms.
Liberals are worried about poor blacks and browns getting access to voting, conservatives are worried about voter fraud.
Liberals are worried about women being raped, conservatives are worried about men being falsely accused.
It seems like every problem there is, liberals are worried about something that happens a lot, and conservatives are worried about a problem generated by the solution of the other problem, but that is about a hundred times as rare as the other problem.
A deflection tactic?
R. Maheras
June 19, 2014 - 6:09 am
Martha — I agree with your historical assessment of the problem. What I don’t agree with is the wording and unrealistic expectations of the newest sexual assault guidelines. They are totally unspecific about what constitutes “incapacitated,” meaning prosecutors and judges can interpret that word any way they want.
They are also unfair, because one partner gets a total pass on their decision to use drugs and alcohol, and the effects it has on them, while the other is expected to make clear and rational decisions even if imbibing in the exact same way.
And since when did I say “marriage makes assault OK?”
Marriage, in the context of my conversation, simply meant that by getting married, two people are making it clear that they love each other and that intercourse is probably going to be part of the equation. In a club or party situation, where there is no formal contract, such expectations are rarely clear — particularly when alcohol or drugs are involved.
R. Maheras
June 19, 2014 - 6:16 am
Rene — Your cookie-cutter logic is nothing more than stereotypical nonsense.
No one should be falsely accused or imprisoned, and especially not because or their race, religion, sexual preference, or, in this case, their gender.
Martha Thomases
June 19, 2014 - 6:26 am
Russ, women are not the only people who get raped, nor are they the only people who can bring charges against a rapist.
George Haberberger
June 19, 2014 - 8:35 am
I’ve been away on vacation so I am getting into this a bit late. Nevertheless, it appears that George Will wrote a column that many people disagree with and the solution is to start a petition to have him fired. Seriously? If his opinions are so execrable, as Martha says, why not let him spew? I am reminded of the adage, “Liberals want conservatives to shut up. Conservatives want liberals to keep talking.”
Martha Thomases
June 19, 2014 - 8:52 am
George Will can say whatever he likes, wherever he likes. However, he is not entitled to get paid for it. The petition is a tool for readers of the Post to tell its owners they don’t want to contribute to Will’s salary.
Free speech works both ways.
R. Maheras
June 19, 2014 - 10:03 am
Martha — I understand that not just women can be raped. That’s why I wrote some of my responses above in a gender-neutral manner, like this:
“They are also unfair, because one partner gets a total pass on their decision to use drugs and alcohol, and the effects it has on them, while the other is expected to make clear and rational decisions even if imbibing in the exact same way.”
So man, or woman, the new sexual assault guidelines are stacked against the accused even in situations where no other evidence of rape exists.
I understand this issue more than most because I was the DOD project officer for the recent documentary about sexual assault in the military, “Invisible War.” For two years the project was on my plate, and one of the reasons the DOD cooperated with the producers — even though we all knew it was going to be a painful and ugly topic — is because I recommended we support it.
The good news is that the completed documentary, although biased in a couple of ways I won’t go in to, had a powerful impact on military leadership at the highest levels, and has led to considerable changes being made — particularly when it comes to sexual assault reporting and investigations. The documentary has since been shown at a number of senior military leadership professional development conferences as a standard training tool.
But the problem goes way beyond the military, because the military is nothing more than a cross-section of America. As you are no doubt aware, the issue is also a hot-button topic at colleges for the exact same reasons it was with the military: the problem was being swept under the rug, was under-reported, and stemmed, in part, from leadership denial, and long-standing cultural “norms” that did little to address the problem.
That said, when I see one of the implemented solutions has a serious problem attached to it, I’m going to point it out.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Rene
June 19, 2014 - 10:17 am
George –
No, no. I want conservatives to keep talking. I love to see the bigger and bigger hole they dig in to bury themselves. The liberals who want to shut those fools up are fools themselves and are only giving conservatives a excuse to claim that they are the ones being persecuted.
Russ –
I think my logic stands. Obviously, not for all conservatives, but it’s an old debating tactic. When you can’t defend the indefensible, you must then find an artificial problem to impugn the other guy’s position.
“Homosexuality is wrong isn’t cutting it anymore with a lot of younger prople. We have to find a new – and apparently legimate – reason to attack homosexuality. I know! Let’s say gays will sue churches to force them into let them join and claim gays are a threat to religious liberty!”
Brilliant.
Not to mention that conservatives aren’t so worried about the consequences of poorly thought out laws when those laws involve people shooting other people and claiming self-defense when there are no witnessess. A situation remarkably similar to the one you’re complaining about. Except that conservatives always believe the guy that shot first (or the only one who had a gun in the first place) while liberals always believe the woman.
And you didn’t answer me. What is the difference between this law and the old law? Am I to assume that under the old law a guy could have sex with a passed out woman with no fear of reprisal?
George Haberberger
June 19, 2014 - 11:24 am
Martha,
True, no one is entitled to be paid for their opinions but when someone’s livelihood is writing their opinion, an attempt to deprive them of their livelihood because a faction doesn’t want to hear it seems to fly in the face of free speech. They could just not read the column. What they want is to have no one read the column.
I am reminded of a few years ago when Sarah Palin movie, The Undefeated, was released. The AMC website bulletin board had posts from people who pledged to boycott the AMC chain if they carried the movie. They didn’t just not want to see it, they didn’t want anyone else to see it either.
Rene said:
“The liberals who want to shut those fools up are fools themselves and are only giving conservatives a excuse to claim that they are the ones being persecuted.”
We agree about this. Why don’t liberals?
Again if George Will’s opinion is so offensive you should let him continue since that would reveal his execrable personality to the masses.
R. Maheras
June 19, 2014 - 1:24 pm
Rene — The old laws vary by state, and country. You can Google it easily enough. As you’ll see in, say, the Wikipedia entry about sexual assault, there is an incredible amount of discussion about the word “consent,” and whether or not someone is “incapacitated.”
Which brings me back to parties and clubs where alcohol and/or drugs are flowing. a bunch of lawyers expect people under those circumstances to understand all the potential nuances of the various laws?
“No means no” is one thing — even a drunk usually understands no — but if there’s never a “no,” then it gets real complicated.
Bottom line? If you’re single, don’t go to parties and clubs where everyone’s drinking or getting high. Find a partner at church or the laundromat, cultivate a relationship, marry them, and then have sexual relations (if they say “yes,” of course, and no wine was served beforehand).
R. Maheras
June 19, 2014 - 1:24 pm
Rene — The old laws vary by state, and country. You can Google it easily enough. As you’ll see in, say, the Wikipedia entry about sexual assault, there is an incredible amount of discussion about the word “consent,” and whether or not someone is “incapacitated.”
Which brings me back to parties and clubs where alcohol and/or drugs are flowing. a bunch of lawyers expect people under those circumstances to understand all the potential nuances of the various laws?
“No means no” is one thing — even a drunk usually understands no — but if there’s never a “no,” then it gets real complicated.
Bottom line? If you’re single, don’t go to parties and clubs where everyone’s drinking or getting high. Find a partner at church or the laundromat, cultivate a relationship, marry them, and then have sexual relations (if they say “yes,” of course, and no wine was served beforehand).
Mike Gold
June 19, 2014 - 2:21 pm
I remain totalitarian in my free speech attitude, and I am reminded of the oft-quoted (well, by me at least) line by A. J. Liebling: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is hardly a “liberal” newspaper. OK, it’s not the Washington Times either as the P-D, by and large, publishes the truth as they know it, so if the Washington Times is your standard of fair and balanced reporting (SPOILER ALERT), stop reading now. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch dropped Will’s column, with the following statement:
“The change has been under consideration for several months, but a column published June 5, in which Mr. Will suggested that sexual assault victims on college campuses enjoy a privileged status, made the decision easier. The column was offensive and inaccurate; we apologize for publishing it.”
Offensiveness is not, to me, a reason for firing a writer of opinion. Inaccuracy is. But Liebling was right… and your mileage my vary.
Martha Thomases
June 19, 2014 - 3:08 pm
A few drinks over the course of an evening will not incapacitate an average adult woman. A few drinks over the course of an evening will not incapacitate an average adult man. There is no reason for an otherwise healthy adult to refrain from an occasional intoxicant.
A larger problem is that, since drinking is illegal for most college students (since they are under-age), there is an incentive for them to binge drink, so as not to get caught. Binge drinking, almost by definition, is more likely to cause black-outs.
I’ve consumed a fair number of intoxicating substances over the year, and I’ve never had a problem with giving or denying consent while under the influence.
Never been roofied, either.
Which, I would guess, happens more often than a victim lying about being raped.
Mike Gold
June 19, 2014 - 4:46 pm
Well, yes, Martha, you may have consumed a fair number of intoxicating substances without compromising your consensual integrity, but I have seen you walking barefoot down Greenwich Village streets under similar conditions. This can be dangerous, or at least potentially quite icky.
As for your point, I’ll save Russ the trouble of saying that those women shouldn’t be binge drinking. Then you’d probably respond “oh, but it’s okay for men to binge drink, huh?” But I doubt that being roofied happens more often than a person lying about being raped. Statistics gathered by rape crisis centers, admittedly over five years ago, suggests one in twenty rape reports are false. That’s their figures, gathered for use in their staff and volunteer training.
And it’s a real problem. A person who falsely cries rape makes it one hell of a lot harder for victims to be taken seriously. It’s hard enough proving rape.
Martha Thomases
June 19, 2014 - 5:22 pm
Mike, I didn’t say I never did anything stupid. Instead, I was trying to say that there are degrees of impairment. As a parent, it was my duty to impress upon my son that other people are humans, not meat bags for his entertainment. Ideally, that lesson stays with him, even in extreme circumstances.
I walked barefoot on the sidewalk because my shoes hurt. It was entirely (mostly) rational.
Mike Gold
June 19, 2014 - 5:29 pm
… except that those were the streets of Manhattan. In August, it might get hot enough to cook an omelet on the sidewalk, but you sure as shit wouldn’t want to eat it.
I never (ever, actually) called you stupid. I have called you wacky, but in my part of the time/space continuum, that’s a compliment. The antonym of wacky is boring.
R. Maheras
June 20, 2014 - 10:51 am
🙂